Re: Move PointerEvents and/or TouchEvents to Web Platform WG? [Was: Future of Pointer Events WG?]]

The discussion from today says WPWG most likely won't be taking this, or at
least for now.

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-webapps-minutes.html#item04


On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [ Newcomers to this thread can find the head at [StartHere] ]
>
> Hi All,
>
> Another option is to move PointerEvents and/or TouchEvents into the Web
> Platform WG [WPWG]. Among the primary advantage would be more "eyes" to
> provide input and review feedback. Doing so would also help reduce group
> admin overhead and depending on who participates, there could be a broader
> RF commitment for IP.
>
> I won't be at the October 27 WPWG meeting but I just added "Add
> PointerEvents v2 and/or TouchEvents v2 to WPWG?" to the [Agenda]
> (11:15-11:30).
>
> -Thanks, ArtB
>
> [StartHere] <
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2015JulSep/0026.html
> >
> [WPWG] <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/webplatform-charter.html>
> [Agenda] <
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/October2015Meeting#Agenda_Tuesday_October_27
> >
>
> On 7/28/15 2:29 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>
>> +public-pointer-events (did you include public-touchevents by mistake?).
>>
>> Sounds like our options are:
>> 1) Extend the PEWG charter in preparation for publishing a Level 2 REC
>> document
>> or
>> 2) Broaden the charter of the TECG to include both touch events and
>> pointer events and continue work there until we have a candidate spec we
>> want to start down the publishing process.
>>
>> Do these options effect what mailing lists we use?  Eg. if we go with #2,
>> can we continue to use public-pointer-events for continuity?
>>
>> I do expect we'll want to publish a PE Level 2 spec within a year or so.
>> If that's just as easy with either option then I don't have a strong
>> opinion.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org <mailto:
>> schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi, folks–
>>
>>     Earlier this year, our current charter was extended until 09
>>     November 2015. We had just published the Pointer Events spec as a
>>     Recommendation, and the Community Group was formed, and wanted to
>>     figure out what our next steps are.
>>
>>     We need to decide if we're going to create a new charter for
>>     review by the Advisory Committee, and if so, what the deliverables
>>     would be, and what the timelines should be.
>>
>>     Right now, I'm not convinced we need a Working Group to continue
>>     in our current state. I think the Community Group might be enough
>>     for now; We need a Working Group to publish Rec-track documents,
>>     but we don't have any publications scheduled, and it's not certain
>>     when we will have.
>>
>>     This mailing list can remain for any necessary discussions.
>>
>>     Our occasional telcons are useful for keeping track of
>>     implementation progress and bug reports, but we can have those
>>     even without a formal Working Group.
>>
>>     In the Community Group, we can continue the discussions, and
>>     develop a new draft of the spec (or other specs); once we have a
>>     clearer idea what our charter should contain, we can recharter
>>     this WG, or charter a new WG with a broader scope, as needed.
>>
>>     I can continue to help out, as needed. I'm being pulled into other
>>     work (W3C is always understaffed, and the Web Payments work needs
>>     some resources), but I can always make time for this group.
>>
>>     Thoughts? Should we recharter in November, or should we close the
>>     Pointer Events WG and operate as a Community Group until we need
>>     to charter a formal WG again?
>>
>>     Regards–
>>     –Doug
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA]
Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan